Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2015 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES V. OLD BUSINESS: 7:00 P.M. April 16, 2015 Declaration of Quorum February 19, 2015 A. Rezone Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Harvey Prickett) (MF# Z 2015- 001) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a mini -storage facility in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Calin Tebay) (MF# SP 2015-003) B. Special Permit C. Preliminary Plat D. Zoning Determination E. Zoning Determination VII. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: Special Permit to locate a modular office adiacent to Fire Station 81 (City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2015-004) Preliminary Plat for Maiestia Estates (Peter Strizhak) (MF# PP 2015-001) Zoning Determination for Road 80 Area (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2015-001( Zoning Determination for Sharma Annexation Area (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2015-002) Emergency Aircraft Landing Code Amendment (MF# CA 2015-001) Shoreline Management Act - Draft Shoreline Master Program REGULAR MEETING PLANNING CALL TO ORDER: MEETING The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No.l VACANT No. 2 Tony Bachart No.3 VACANT No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Gabriel Portugal APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: February 19, 2015 Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes dated January 15, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Special Permit for Pasco Police Station (City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2014-0111 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, discussed the special permit application for the construction of a Police Station. He stated that no comments have been received since the previous meeting. -1- Dave McDonald, City Planner, added that the Planning Commissioners were given a revised site plan prior to the meeting containing minor revisions to the roundabout by the front door. Also, the entry into the secured parking area has been relocated. There were no further changes. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow the construction of a City of Pasco Police Community Services Building at 525 N 3rd Avenue with conditions as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional Commercial) (West Pasco LLQ (MF# Z 2014-0101 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional Commercial). He stated that there is no concomitant agreement proposed and that there were no changes since the previous meeting. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone of the Dietrich (West Pasco LLC) property in the 9500 block of Sandifur Parkway from C-1 to CR. The motion passed unanimously. C. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Big Creek Land Co.) (MF# Z 2014-011) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). He stated that there have been no changes since the previous meeting. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification between the consistency of what the Comprehensive Plan has designated for this site and what it was already zoned for - that it was zoned Commercial but the applicant wishes to make it Residential. She asked if City Code allows for mixed-use or mixed -zoning options. Mr. McDonald answered that the City does have a provision within the Comprehensive Plan that includes a Mixed -Residential Commercial designation and if properties are IPA designated under that category then they can either develop for commercial or residential uses. This property was designated for Mixed -Residential, allowing for RS -20 through R-3 Zoning and the developer requested R- zoning, which is within the parameters. Commissioner Polk asked if there were zoning allowances to allow for buildings to contain both residential and commercial. Mr. McDonald responded that within the C-1 Zone residential units are permitted on upper floors as long as the first floor contains a permitted use, such as a restaurant, office or store but it does require a special permit. The property would have to be zoned commercially and then the applicant would need to request a special permit for the other floors to be residential. Commissioner Khan asked if the developer had any interest in commercial zoning or if that was why they wanted to rezone residential. Mr. McDonald stated that the applicant is leaving seven lots for commercial development and they are working on a project that may come forward in the future but, the main interest for the property is residential as they have developed several surrounding subdivisions. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Khan dissenting. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone of the Broadmoor Terrace site on the south side of Sandifur Parkway from C-1 to R-1. The motion passed 5 to 2, with Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Polk dissenting. Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Polk both explained that they dissented because they wished to keep more of the property zoned commercial rather than more residential. Although the motion was made, Commissioner Khan clarified for the record that her dissenting vote was because she would like the City to retain as much commercial property as possible in Pasco because she feels it would benefit the community more than residential property. Commissioner Polk agreed with Commissioner Khan that she would like to see more commercial. Commissioner Portugal reminded the Planning Commission that discussion is closed as the motion was already made. Mr. McDonald added the Planning Commission recently recommended the City Council rezone 145 acres of land for commercial development near Road 100. That rezone -3- increased the inventory of commercial land in the City. The Commission was also reminded that in order to attract commercial development, there must be a large enough population base to support additional commercial activity. D. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat - Broadmoor Terrace (Big Creek Land Co.) (MF# PP 2014-0061 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Broadmoor Terrace. He stated that this application goes along with the previous rezone that was just recommended to City Council. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Khan shared concern that she had from the rezone of this property, stating that she is concerned about the impact on the School District and the need for schools, the lack of income that comes from residential properties that could come from commercial properties. Although there are school impact fees and there is commercial property near Road 100, she still believes this area should be zoned commercially. Commissioner Polk agreed but now that the motion has already been made to rezone the property commercial, it only makes sense to move forward with the preliminary plat and see the land used most efficiently. She also discussed in the future seeing more mixed- use zoning. Commissioner Portugal stated it is important to find balance between commercial and residential. Chairman Cruz discussed how commercial development happens as the population grows, which is why there is still a need for residential growth. Residential will have to sometimes proceed the commercial. Having elevated residential (residential on upper floors of commercial buildings) units, such as Portland and other communities is great, but it isn't practical in a non -urban environment such as Pasco. Land is still vacant and relatively inexpensive so developers don't need to develop up but out. Commissioner Greenaway appreciates that the developer chose to plat larger lots and left seven lots for commercial, which is much better than apartments, which is what they could have developed. Chairman Cruz added that it also created a nice transition and buffer. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Khan dissenting. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Broadmoor Terrace with conditions as listed in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Khan dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to Locate Mini -Storage Facility in C- 1 (Retail Business) Zone (Calin Tebay) (MF# SP 2015-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location of a mini -storage facility in a C-1 (Retail Business) zone. The proposed site is located on the northwest corner of Road 44 and Argent Road, just north of the I-182 freeway and just south of the FCID Irrigation Canal. This has always been an odd piece of property and slightly difficult to develop, particularly for residential. For many years it has been indicated on the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial development, taking advantage of the two major streets and has been zoned C-1 for three decades. The C-1 zoning designation would allow for a variety of commercial uses, such as restaurants, offices, a variety of stores, convenient stores and gas stations, all of which wouldn't have to go through the special permit process. Mini -storages, however, require extraordinary review through the special permit process. Mr. McDonald explained that if an office complex equal in size to the proposed mini - storage buildings was located at this site it could generate 560 vehicle trips per day. A commercial retail development of equal size would generate over 2,000 vehicle trips per day. A convenient store could generate 2,220 vehicle trips per day. With those trips comes noise, traffic and commotion. The proposed mini -storage on the other hand, according to the Institute of Traffic and Engineers, would only generate about 13 vehicle trips per day. Staff provided findings of fact, approval conditions and a recommendation for City Council. Due to time constraints staff is recommending the hearing and the Council recommendation be expedited on this application. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the process. Chairman Cruz responded that they would hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to Council in one night. Mr. McDonald stated that he needed to point out that there will be a full-time office/ caretaker's facility for security. The mini -storage facility has also been setback from the corner to leave the more visible portion of the property open for permitted uses. Chairman Cruz replied that it could be left open for a convenient store or like activity. Commissioner Khan asked what would be placed between the canal and border of this site. Mr. McDonald answered that there is a canal road and the canal. The homes are elevated about 30 feet above the site itself so they will see over the proposed property and there is a masonry block wall which blocks a good portion of the view so as far as aesthetics from the homes above, they won't see the units at all. -5- Commissioner Bachart asked if the applicant will have to finish the sidewalk down to the corner of the property. Mr. McDonald explained that the applicant will be required to install curb, gutter and sidewalk along the distance of their development and the Engineering Department may work with the applicant on a deferral for the southern portion. The rest down to the intersection will finish it out when the corner is developed. Commissioner Bachart stated that there is a gap by the canal. Mr. McDonald explained eventually the City will have to get with the Irrigation District to widen the bridge. The long term goal of the Irrigation District is to pipe the whole irrigation ditch but will likely be quite a ways down the road. Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification on the number of cars estimated to visit the storage facility per day. Mr. McDonald answered that it was a day average according to the ITE Transportation Manual. Commissioner Bachart stated that he was concerned since there is a hump in the road to the north. Mr. McDonald responded that it was also a concern of the City as well. The applicant's first plan included and office and entrance at the north end of the property. Staff asked to have it moved to the south to get it away from the hump in the road to a flatter section. Commissioner Khan asked if the entrance would be located close to the office building. Mr. McDonald replied that it would. Commissioner Khan said that there is a bit of a blind spot by this property and asked if there were any plans for a traffic light to prevent traffic that is traveling very fast. Mr. McDonald stated yes, the Engineering Department is looking at both Road 44 and Road 36 for signalization but was unsure when it will take place. Chairman Cruz added that part of the recommendation pushes the entry farther away from the intersection so concerns should be mitigated. Commissioner Bachart asked about an on/off ramp from the freeway and when or if that will happen. Mr. McDonald answered that the Engineering Department has been working on it. One of the thoughts was to bring a ramp off at Road 44. This was supposed to be included in a study by the Federal Highway Department which also included an off ramp on Road 52. It is now understood that the two ramps have been separated and the study will move so forward on the Road 52 ramp. The Road 44 ramp has been put to the side for now. Mr. McDonald explained these studies take several years and once they are completed there are a number of years of design work and then more time to get funding. Calin Tebay, 7320 Sandy Ridge Road, spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that the reason for needing to expedite this application is because there is a tax free deferral and he has to have the facility built within nine months. He discussed the details of the structure and office. His goal is to have a nice, upscale storage facility that is safe. The site plan reflects possible future buildings but at this time that area will not be developed. Mr. Tebay stated that he has also worked with the Engineering Department on this project. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Mr. McDonald pointed out many storage facilities leave gravel throughout their property which creates dust but in this case, and the applicant has agreed, to pave all of the aisle ways between the units and the entryway to be hard surfaced. This is similar to the other recent facilities. Chairman Cruz used the storage facility on Road 100 as a reference. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a mini -storage facility on tax parcel # 117-250-030 with conditions as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Harvey Prickett) (MF# Z 2015- 0011 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The site is located at the intersection of Crescent Road and Chapel Hill Boulevard and is roughly 4 acres in size. The proposed R-3 zoning would permit up to 57 dwelling units; however, building setback requirements, landscaping, parking and other improvements will limit the number of dwelling units that will be built. There is no site plan at this time but there is a need for a landscape buffer. Mr. O Neill discussed the need for a landscaped along the southwest boundary line. Twenty-five feet was recommended. Because required improvements (involving significant fill) to Crescent Drive it would be very expensive and difficult to develop the site for a few single family homes. The plan is for Crescent Road to connect to Chapel Hill Boulevard serving as a useful bypass alleviating traffic from the neighborhoods to the south. General information in the written staff report was reviewed for the benefit of the Planning Commission. -7- Chairman Cruz reminded the Planning Commission about previous discussions on this property and why the additional buffer and grading is necessary. Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification on the proposed 25 foot landscaping buffer and the road improvements will only have to be done to the end of their property. Mr. O Neill responded that staff is recommending the 25 foot landscaping buffer. And this property borders Crescent Road and Chapel Hill Boulevard and the property frontages will require right-of-way improvements. Dave McDonald, City Planner, clarified that where Chapel Hill Boulevard ends at Crescent Road is essentially where the public road right-of-way stops. The property owner will need to complete Crescent Road and connect it to Chapel Hill Boulevard but to do that there is possibly up to 20 feet of fill that will need to be placed in front of the site to make the grade match properly. Chairman Cruz reminded the Planning Commission of the previous discussion on this property. The goal is to preserve the residential zoning to the southwest as much as possible but ultimately the C-1 zoning to the north (east) will take precedence when the neighboring farm is sold. Commissioner Bachart responded that part of his concern is that he wants to protect the property owners to the southwest but at the same time, the C-1 zoning could allow for a store, such as Costco, directly across the street without a special permit, and so he stated that the 25 foot buffer is a little much in his opinion. He suggested 10-15 feet and perhaps some trees. Chairman Cruz added that when the applicant explains the grading the 25 foot buffer will seem to make more sense. Harvey Prickett of Wave Architects, 99304 E. Clover Road, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of this application. The intent is townhome style buildings. The low point of the property will have a park and will double as the storm water retention pond. They would also like to propose a fence, as long as it doesn't conflict with easements on the property line, with the material as either concrete or CMU Piers at 8-12' intervals and an attractive composite fencing in between. They wish to hydro seed the rest of the area for a greenspace and plant large growth trees, such as Red Oak, at 30' intervals along the property. He stated that he was in agreement with Staffs recommendation for the 25 foot landscaping buffer. Chairman Cruz responded that the plans are more specific than the Planning Commission typically sees during a rezone application. Mr. Prickett answered that he wanted to have it all planned out in case there was discussion from the audience, as in the previous meeting. Chairman Cruz asked if a block wall is required or if other types of fencing would be permitted. Mr. McDonald replied that this isn't a subdivision so the block wall provisions don't apply. In Mr. Prickett referred fence will be attractive. As far as the greenspace with sod or hydro seeding and oak trees every 30 feet would be fine. It is good to put in the concomitant agreement so there is no dispute between the applicant and staff on what is expected. Chairman Cruz responded that he felt confident in staff and the applicant working out the details for the concomitant agreement and Planning Commission would look at it prior to making a recommendation to City Council. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the March 19, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Plan Shoreline Master Program - Draft Shoreline Master Plan Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeff Adams, Associate Planner discussed the Shoreline Master Program. For the past year staff has worked with the consultant, Ben Floyd of Anchor QEA, and so far they have put together a public participation plan, draft developmental goals and policies and the environmental designations. Much of what goes into the plan is mandated by the State. Ben Floyd was introduced. Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA, spoke on behalf of this item. He introduced Angela San Filippo, Washington State Department of Ecology, as she will be reviewing the program that is developed. Chairman Cruz suggested going over the areas in the plan that aren't mandated by the State. Mr. Floyd briefly discussed the relationship between the Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act, the profile and inventory analysis, goals and policies, regulations, shoreline modifications and environmental designations. He emphasized the Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix and Shoreline Development Standards Matrix tables in the plan. He also pointed out critical areas for the Planning Commission to discuss. There are some tables included in the draft plan relating to wetland protection that need to be updated. There was a draft guidance document that was issued by the State last summer for protecting wetlands in Eastern Washington and the numbers have slightly changed by their scoring and ranking of how functions are designated. Chairman Cruz asked if he was referring the mitigation ratios. Mr. Floyd clarified that the mitigation ratios were fine but the Wetland Buffer Width Requirements table has changed. After critical areas in the plan it moves on to existing structures and lots - how to deal with existing development that was legally permitted and -9- how do they move forward. There was a brief discussion on the goals and policies of the program and the City of Pasco's Shoreline Linkages Plan was included in the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Floyd highlighted economic development, supporting the industrial sites as well as the boating and recreation opportunities. Public access is an important part of this plan. There was some discussion regarding building height limits and the various methods that could be used for various zones. The Shoreline Master Program will be on the agenda again in March for further discussion. COMMENTS: Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, passed out photos of a recently constructed building, built by GESA. It is a records storage facility that was constructed on Sylvester Street and was permitted by the City and followed the current codes. The building itself is a plain white pole building that does not look aesthetically pleasing, however, under current codes it is permitted. He asked the Planning Commission if they would like to see staff bring to them a code amendment to prevent this from happening in the future. The Planning Commission was in agreement to have a proposed code amendment brought to them. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -10- REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-001 APPLICANT: Harvey Prickett HEARING DATE: 2/19/2015 P.O. Box 3431 ACTION DATE: 3/19/2015 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) 1. Lots 1 and 2, Short Plat 2001-29 General Location: 4600 Block of Crescent Road Property Size: The site is approximately 4 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has unimproved access from Chapel Hill Boulevard and Crescent Road. 3. UTILITIES: A municipal sewer line is located in Crescent Drive adjacent to the site. A municipal water line will need to be extended along property frontage(s) to serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RS -12 (Suburban) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-4 - Multi -Family Residences SOUTH: C-1 -Agriculture EAST: C-1 - Agriculture WEST: RS -12 - Single -Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential uses. Goal LU -3-B encourages infill and (higher) density to protect open space and critical areas in support of more walkable neighborhoods. Goal LU -3-E encourages the city to designate area for higher density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. 1 ANALYSIS Harvey Prickett has applied to change the zoning classification of two parcels from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) to allow for multi -family residential development. The subject site is comprised of two parcels totaling approximately 4 acres in area located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Chapel Hill Boulevard and Crescent Road. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Mixed Residential land uses which allows for a variety of residential zones/densities ranging from RS -20 (Suburban) through R-3. Of the allowable zones under the Mixed Residential designation, R-3 zoning permits the highest residential density at a rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,OOOft2 of land area or 14.5 units per acre. For comparison, the single-family R-1 zone permits an approximate density of 6 -units per acre. Currently the site totals 171,887 ft2 in area; barring any required right- of-way dedications R-3 zoning will allow up to 57 dwelling units. Building setback requirements, landscaping and parking will moderate the total number of units that can be accommodated on the site. The 4 -acre site is undeveloped vacant land. Adjacent roadways are entirely unimproved. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utility line extensions and landscaping along all right-of-way frontages will be required during the building permit process. The expense associated with the referenced improvements including elevating Crescent Drive to properly connect with Chapel Hill Boulevard would be cost prohibitive for single-family development. Crescent Drive will need to be elevated 12 or more feet above its current elevation to achieve the proper grade for connection to Chapel Hill Boulevard. One of the benefits of connecting Crescent Drive to Chapel Hill Boulevard is that traffic to and from the site will not need to travel past the homes to the south on a regular basis. Chapel Hill Boulevard is identified in the Major Street Plan as minor arterial that is planned to connect with Crescent Drive. This connection will complete the general circulation system for the area west of Road 100. The travel distance from existing homes to the south of the site on Crescent Drive to the intersection with Road 100 and Chapel Hill Boulevard will be shortened by 1.34 miles. This street connection has been planned for many years. It is common urban planning practice to assign higher -density residential zones to transitional areas where they serve as buffers between higher and lesser intense land uses. The site is located west of the high-density Broadmoor (residential) Apartments and east of a suburban single-family residential neighborhood. Land to the south is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) but remains vacant and is used for farming. The site is separated from Highway 1-182 only by a narrow parcel of vacant land. The proposed R-3 zone will effectively be a step down in residential density from the Broadmoor Apartments transitioning to the single family neighborhood to the southwest, thereby achieving a graduated scale of residential densities. 2 neighborhood to the southwest, thereby achieving a graduated scale of residential densities. The vicinity generally functions as a gateway into Pasco. Bolstering site development in gateway areas has an enhanced visual effect on the economic state of a community. Eliminating vacant land in gateway areas is in the best interest of Pasco's economic development. Concern is often expressed about impacts to lower density property values when nearby properties are being considered for higher density zoning. Past searches of the Franklin County Auditor's records in areas of the community where multi- family development is located adjacent to lower density development have indicated there is no diminution in the value of the surrounding single-family homes. Studies by the Urban Land Institute (Higher -Density Development Myth and Fact, 2005, Urban Land Institute) confirm this fact. Even so, neighbors are often concerned about the impact of higher density development upon the character of the surrounding neighborhood. To address those concerns a concomitant agreement requiring a 25 -foot wide landscaped buffer along the southwesterly boundary line of the site has been developed. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification was established 14 years ago when the property was annexed into the city in 2001. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: In 2014 the Planning Commission reviewed and City Council approved an application to change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site to Mixed Residential in preparation for this rezone application. The Mixed -Residential land use designation allows assignment of a variety of residential zones/densities ranging from RS -20 (Suburban) through R-3. Of the allowable zones under the Muted Residential designation, the R-3 zone permits the highest residential density at a rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,OOOfV of land area or 14.5 units per acre. In 2002 the adjacent site to the northeast currently containing the Broadmoor Apartments was assigned R-4 (High -Density Residential) zoning. In 2004 the site to the northeast was developed with a high-density residential apartment complex containing 250 dwelling units on 15 acres of land. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: 3 Changing the zoning classification of the site will foster development of a largely underdeveloped parcel of land very near the city's main highway. There is merit in the elimination of an underdeveloped site visible from the city's major highway as it may foster further development in the neighborhood. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: A change in zoning classification resulting in a multi family residential development will enhance the residential character of the vicinity by providing an increased number of housing opportunities. The rezone from RS -12 to R-3 will encourage "infill and density including planned unit developments to protect open space and critical areas," as per Land Use Policy LU -3-B, and allow for "higher -density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources," in keeping with Land Use Policy LU -3-E. This rezone would still align with the intent of said goal and also "allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing, " consistent with Housing Policy H -2-A. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Without increasing the allowable residential density site development may not occur. The applicant may not wish to proceed with any site development if it cannot be multi family residential. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is currently zoned RS -12 (Suburban). 2. The 4 -acre site is vacant. 3. The site is located on in the 4600 block of Crescent Road. 4. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) zoning be assigned to the site to allow for multi -family residential development. 5. The property to the north of the site is zoned R-4 High Density Residential and contains an apartment complex. 6. The R-4 property to the north also contains a vacant 5 acre parcel set aside for future expansion of the Broadmoor Apartment complex 11 7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed -Residential uses which allows assignment of a range of residential zones including R-3 (Medium - Density Residential). 8. The property to the east of the site is zoned C-1 Retail Business. 9. The Comprehensive Plan designates the properties directly to the north and east of the site for mixed residential and commercial land uses. 10. The R-3 zone allows a maximum residential density rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,000 square feet of land area. 11. Roadways adjacent to the site are completely undeveloped; consisting only of bare dirt pathways. 12. Crescent Drive must be elevated 12 or more feet above its current elevation to properly connect with the end of Chapel Hill Boulevard when the property in question is developed. 13. A municipal sewer line currently extends the length of the site in Crescent Road. 14. Municipal water lines currently terminate at both the north and south ends of the site and will need to be extended for service. 15. Due to the odd shape of the property and the fact Crescent Road will need extensive fill development of the property with single-family dwellings may be cost prohibitive. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a zoning amendment the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU -3-B encourages "infill" development while H -2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments. Housing Policy (H -B -A) encourages standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The proposed R-3 zoning will permit site development of a lesser density than the apartments to the northeast. Based on past experience with rezoning and development of vacant land adjacent to existing single-family and multi family developments, and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County, the proposed rezone will not be materially detrimental to the value of properties within immediate vicinity. 5 2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Establishment of medium -density residential zoning and the eventual development on the subject site will further establish the multi family character matching much of the vicinity which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Multi family residential developments in the area routinely experience high rates of occupancy. From this we can infer that there is a need in the community for affordable multi family housing opportunities. There is merit in providing an increased range of housing opportunities available in those areas currently served by municipal utilities and public transportation and will enable efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. To address any perceived concerns over compatibility issues between the proposed R-3 rezone and the single-family development to the south a concomitant agreement should be required to impose a condition related to a landscaped buffer along the southern boundary of the site. 4. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is needed to ensure a 25 foot wide landscaped buffer is included between the proposed rezone site and the development to the south. (For reference the required buffer between commercial development and residentially zoned properties is 10 feet.) MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 19, 2015 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone of the Walker property in the 4600 Block of Crescent Road from RS -12 to R-3. "Exhibit # 2" CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non -charter code city, under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows: LOTS 1 & 2, SHORT PLAT 2001-29 (Parcel # 118170276) WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to ensure compliance with the Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and development of the above described property; and WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law, desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and subject to the terns and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above-described property. 2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement. 3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described. Page 1 of 2 "Exhibit # 2" 4. Conditions: a) Site development shall contain a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer along the full length of the southwesterly parcel boundary. b) Said landscape buffer shall contain red oak trees, or an approved equivalent, spaced no less than thirty (30) feet apart. c) The groundcover in said landscape buffer shall consist of 100% lawn. The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described property: Owner: STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of Franklin ) On this day of , 2015, before me, the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of , 2015. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Page 2 of 2 UA -10 H®o1�GVOHI c � oa c rA4 t ` \ a,r a v lt GAI8 xooWavoaNil r a�ox av=-4 L Fil ~ Yt ya f,i �.y j4 — is Y J'%rY it ' " �•� , r i.. X _ f � LJ due r t . r Yt ya f,i �.y j4 — is Y J'%rY it ' " �•� , r i.. X _ f � due r . r L � k l l ev � d, Yt ya f,i �.y j4 — is Y J'%rY it ' " �•� , r t ; X _ f � F11u���u.w . r Yt ya f,i �.y j4 — is Y J'%rY it ' " �•� , r X _ ' Y f . r RS "JAW"-, _ �d Til _ ... fa- RS "JAW"-, ,T tg, jZ ct "JAW"-, ,T tg, jZ ,.. f \ ,.. REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-003 HEARING DATE: 4/16/2015 ACTION DATE: 4/16/2015 APPLICANT: Calin Tebay 7320 Sandy Ridge Rd Pasco, WA 99301 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Mini -Storage Facility in a C-1 Zone 1. Legal: Lot 4 of Binding Site Plan 2013-02; and the east 269.53 feet of lot 1, Binding Site Plan 2007-07 General Location: The 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard just north of the Crossings at Chapel Hill Apartments Property Size: Approximately 3.7 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Chapel Hill Boulevard. 3. UTILITIES: Water and sewer lines are located in Chapel Hill Boulevard to the south. Most of the proposed storage buildings will not require connection to municipal sewer and water. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned C-1* (Retail Business). The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: C-1/RT I=182 and the TRAC Facility/GESA Stadium EAST: R-3 Apartments SOUTH: R -4/R-1 Apartments and SFDUs WEST: C-1 Vacant *(The site is located in the I-182 Overlay zone.) 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for future commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address self -storage facilities, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development. Policy LU -1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The Comprehensive Plan (LU -4-A) encourages the location of commercial facilities at major intersection to avoid commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods. Policy LU -2-D requires all development to be landscaped. ED -3-E suggests the use of landscaping to provide a buffer between less intensive uses (such as residential) from utilitarian areas of commercial and industrial facilities. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The proposed site is a parcel and part of another parcel located at the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard, just north of the Chapel Hill Apartments, and south of I-182. The site is part of the Chapel Hill Development which is a mixed use subdivision platted in 2005. The site was zoned C-1 prior to platting in 2003. The site is located over 1,300 feet from Road 68. Following the approval of the original plat for the Chapel Hill Development the developer further divided the site through the Binding Site Plan process. The Binding Site Plan process was repeated in 2013 creating additional commercial lots. The proposed mini -storage facility will be located on all or a portion of two lots as mentioned above. The Binding Site Plans encumbered the site with a number of easements and setback buffers corresponding more or less to the commercial landscaping buffer requirements of the zoning regulations. Mini -storage facilities are a conditional use that may be permitted only by the granting of a Special Permit. Special Permit reviews and determinations are made based upon the criteria listed in PMC Section 25.86.060. If it can be demonstrated that a mini - storage facility will be in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, that it will be maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the surrounding neighborhood, and that it generally supports the other criteria of PMC Section 25.86.060, a Special Permit may be approved. The applicant is proposing to develop Lot 4 of Binding Site Plan 2013-02; and the east 269.53 feet of lot 1, Binding Site Plan 2007-07 as a mini -storage facility. The site plan indicates there will be ten storage buildings and one office. The storage buildings will vary in size from approximately 1,100 to 11,750 square feet. The office will be a two- story building of approximately 4,500 square -feet. In all, a total of around 59,700 square feet of new storage is proposed. As discussed above the Special Permit review process allows the Planning Commission to make a determination on whether or not a proposed use will be or can be maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood. It is through this process that the Planning Commission may develop approval conditions that would ensure the proposal will be established and operated in harmony with the neighborhood. The intended character of the site and properties to the west is retail commercial; properties to the east and directly south are designated for medium to high density residential uses and have been developed with apartments. The apartment development to the east installed a block wall/fence between the site and the apartment property in 2005 but, no landscaping buffer has been developed on the commercial property. The north property line borders the I-182 freeway. The site's C-1 zoning permits a variety of commercial retail, office and service business to locate on the property. An office complex with square footage comparable to the proposed mini -storage facility would generate about 560 vehicle trips per day and a similar sized retail shopping center would generate approximately 2,100 vehicle trips per day. High impact facilities like a small convenience store/gas station can generate around 2,200 vehicle trips per day. By comparison the Institute of Traffic Engineers E Manual estimates the proposed mini -storage facility will generate about 13 vehicle trips per day. Based upon vehicular traffic to the site the proposed mini -storage facility would create less noise, vibration and commotion than many permitted uses in the C-1 zone. Additionally the hours of operation for a restaurant or tavern (both permitted uses) could also have a greater impact on the neighborhood than a mini -storage facility. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is located at the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard. 2. The site is accessed from Chapel Hill Boulevard. 3. Currently the site is approximately 3.7 acres in size. 4. Municipal sewer and water are currently located in Chapel Hill Boulevard to the south. 5. The site currently vacant. 6. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). 7. The site is over 1,300 feet from Road 68 causing it to be of marginal benefit for many commercial enterprises that require high impact site conveniently adjacent major arterial streets. 8. The site is directly adjacent to an apartment complex on the east. 9. The apartment complex was developed with a block wall/fence along the east boundary line of the proposed mini -storage site. 10. The site occupies a portion or all of two lots within Binding Site Plan (BSP) 2013-02; 11. BSP 2013-02 contains various buffers along the northern and eastern boundaries of the proposed site. 12. Uses permitted in the C-1 zone include motels, restaurants, retail stores, offices, convenience stores and taverns/night clubs. 13. Mini -storage facilities in C-1 zones require special permits. 14. The apartment complex to the east maintains a 20 foot front yard setback. 15. The site is located within the boundaries of the I-182 Overlay District. 16. Estimates from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual 8th Addition indicate the proposed mini -storage facility could generate about 13 vehicle trips per day. By comparison the manual estimates a small convenience store/gas station can generate around 2,200 vehicle trips per day CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? A mini -storage facility can be compatible with several Comprehensive Plan policies. Policy LU -1-13 encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The proposal would replace vacant land with a well-developed facility with a landscaped street. Policy LU -2-13 requires all development to be landscaped. Development of the site currently includes landscaping which support policies of the Comprehensive Plan (LU2-D). The Comprehensive Plan (LU -4-A) encourages the location of commercial facilities at major intersection to avoid commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from Chapel Hill Boulevard. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible compared to permitted uses such as restaurants and similar uses. Impacts to the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal due to the low volume of traffic typically generated by mini -storage facilities. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The Comprehensive Plan (LU -4-A) encourages the location of commercial facilities at major intersection to avoid commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods. The proposed site is zoned C-1 and is located on Chapel Hill Boulevard near the Road 68/I-182 interchange. Due to the lack of traffic and noise generated by mini -storage facilities the proposal may be more in harmony with the neighborhood than permitted uses. Harmony with the neighborhood will be further achieved through implementation of the I-182 building standards, the addition of buffer landscaping and front yard setbacks. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? Structures in the C-1 zone are limited to thirty five (35) feet in height. None of the proposed structures will approach 35 feet in height with the tallest structure being twenty five (25) feet in height. The location of mini -storage facilities adjacent to residential neighborhoods within the City has not resulted in complaints being forwarded to the City. According to Franklin County assessors records the location of a mini -storage facility immediately adjacent to the Sunny Meadows subdivision has not impacted the assessed value of the homes directly north of the mini -storage facility. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The City receives few to no complaints about the operations of mini -storage facilities adjacent to residential neighborhoods Typically, mini -storage facility generate far less traffic, noise, dust, etc. than some uses permitted in the C-1 zone; such as restaurants, taverns, night-clubs and car -washes. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? As a general land use, mini -storage facilities are not inherently dangerous to public health or safety and do not generate nuisance conditions. This particular location may be beneficial in that it will buffer occupied land use to the south from freeway noise of I-182 with a non -occupied commercial land use. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) This Special Permit shall apply to Lot 4 of Binding Site Plan 2013-02; and the east 269.53 feet of lot 1 Binding Site Plan 2007-07 (Franklin County Tax Parcel 117420161 and the east 269.53 feet of parcel 117420144). 2) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the Special Permit application; 3) The property must be developed in conformance with the I-182 Overlay District design standards; 4) All aisle -ways between buildings and all entrance driveways/roads shall be hard -surfaced; 5) All building walls exposed to an existing city street together with all walls visible from adjoining properties shall contain architectural features to add interest and aesthetic qualities to building by the use of masonry coursing, pilasters, patterning, alternating textures and decorative molding to match the existing office building. No composite materials, such as typical home siding, are permitted; 6) All metal roofing shall be colored to complement the exterior walls of the mini - storage buildings while minimizing glare; 7) The site shall be screened with an architectural block wall/fence on the north and west property lines; 8) All security lighting shall be shielded and designed to prevent the encroachment of light onto adjoining properties; 5 9) The applicant must complete a boundary line adjustment to properly identify the site prior to obtaining a building permit; 10) All easements no longer needed as the result of completing a boundary line adjustment must be eliminated. 11) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by June 1, 2016. The proposed project is part of a 1031 tax exchange. As a result the applicant has a limited amount of time to complete this project. He has therefore asked that the Planning Commission act on the matter following the hearing on April 16th 2015. MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a mini -storage facility on tax parcel 117 420 161 and the east 269.53 feet of parcel 117 420 144, with conditions as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report. 0 14-4 • POO •P rV cj 9 fnF IF iA LU '6 • e OK �. evil LT 1Y-f.J �Yf I J rat! m at LU LU '6 • �rf evil LT 1Y-f.J �Yf LU '6 • �rf evil LT I J rat! m at J = I it -� s Faary lig @ � a rs AINTREE DR m� Z s N> b� 0 LL M00 U) LL N U CtLUJ 0 O ct i Ct N � U � m LV a FM Q c� Cl) Q AINTREE DR ' U woo me (wtl J J, 'Jll ,`JNIN33NION3 NNIdS O�SOdOi oy a 39VUOiS-INIW OJSVd NMd 3L5 AtlVNIN1138d \ ` 11,11 iVi TO I I: I I I I I II I I$q I I - I 14 I I II Il I I I I I I I I I Id II I $I I "I I w Ile I I I J I( I I I: I I I I I II I I$q I I - I 14 I I II Il I I I I I I I M 144 JA I r. 144 JA I AOL. E REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-004 APPLICANT: City of Pasco HEARING DATE: 4/16/2015 PO Box 293 ACTION DATE: 4/16/2015 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Modular Office at Fire Station 81. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Block 117 Pasco Land Company's First Addition. General Location: Fire Station 81 at 310 N. Oregon Avenue. Property Size: 2.25 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Oregon Ave. and East Bonneville St. 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. The site was originally developed with an elevated water tank and now contains a valve and pumping station and Fire Station 81. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: C-3 - Commercial Development SOUTH: C-3 - Four-plex and Trucking Firm EAST: C-3 - Vacant and Commercial Development WEST: I-1 - Automotive Repair Facilities &v two Houses S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Industrial Uses. The Plan encourages the setting aside of adequate lands for public facilities (Goal CF -3) and the maintenance of a fire protection service that is effective and cost efficient (Goal CF -6). Policy CF -7-C suggests public facilities should contribute to necessary concurrency requirements for transportation and utilities. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS In 1999 the City relocated Fire Station # 81 from the downtown area to 310 North Oregon Avenue. The 7,000 square foot station contains three bays for fire and ambulance vehicles and the main administrative office for the Fire Department. When Station 81 was constructed in 1999 the City was approaching a population of 27,000. Today the City is approaching a population of 68,000. The Fire Department, like other departments within the City, has grown to meet the demand of an ever increasing population. As a result there is a need to expand the administrative offices for the Fire Department. In this case the proposal for the expanded offices involves relocating and refurbishing the old Metro Task Force Office/Record Storage building currently located in the secured police parking area behind the City Hall. To make way for the new Police Station the old Metro Task Force building will be moved to the north side of the parking lot behind Fire Station 81. Station 81 was originally granted a Special Permit in early 1999 for the current site development. The addition of the modular office to the site will require additional Special Permit review and approval. The proposed site has been owned by the City and developed with public facilities for 50 plus years. Prior to the construction of the Fire Station the site housed an elevated water tank and drainage pond. Public facilities on the site have had a long history with the neighborhood and have generally operated in harmony with surrounding development. Much of the current development along Oregon Avenue occurred after the Fire Station was built in 1999. The Special Permit review process allows the Planning Commission to make a determination on whether or not a proposed use will be or can be maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood. It is through this process that the Planning Commission may develop approval conditions that would ensure the proposal will be established and operated in harmony with the neighborhood. The intended character of the neighborhood is that of commercial and industrial development. Buildings in the neighborhood are typically site built permanent facilities. The existing Fire Station is an attractive site built brick and stucco structure. The water valve/pump house on the site to the north of the Fire Station is also a masonry type structure. The proposed modular office will be placed to the rear of the Fire Station on the north side of the existing parking lot. The proposed office will appear and function as an accessory structure to the Fire Station. The use regulations of the zoning code (PMC 25.70.030) require accessory structures to be compatible and similar to primary structures. This requirement typically applies in residential zones but has be used as a guide for reviewing Special Permit applications. To achieve compatibility with the existing Fire Station and pump house and give the proposed office an appearance of permanency it should be 2 pit set (to avoid the temporary trailer house look) and painted to complement the Fire Station. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is located at the northwest corner of North Oregon Avenue and East Bonneville Street. 2. The site has accessed from North Oregon Avenue and East Bonneville Street. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for industrial uses. 4. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF -6 encourages the maintenance of a fire protection service that is effective and cost efficient 5. The site is just over 2 acres in size. 6. The site is zoned C-3 (General Business). 7. The site has been owned by the City of Pasco for over 50 years and has been occupied with various public facilities over the years. 8. The site is currently developed with Fire Station 81. 9. Fire Station 81 was granted a special Permit in 1999. 10. Much of the development along North Oregon Avenue has occurred since the Fire Station was built in 1999. 11. The Fire Station is site built brick and stucco building. 12. The water system pump house on the Fire Station site is an architectural masonry block building that complements the Fire Station. 13. The proposed office is a modular building analogous to a mobile home in appearance. 14. When place on the Fire Station property at 310 North Oregon Avenue the modular office will become an accessory structure use to provide administrative support services to the Pasco Fire Department. 15. PMC 25.70.030 can be used as a guide in determining Special Permit conditions necessary to establish compatibility between the existing on- site structures and the proposed modular office. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal: 3 (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The proposal is supported by plan goals or policies that stress the need to provide land for public services (Goal CF -3), ensure public services are located to optimize access (Goal CF -7) and that the community maintain fire protection service that is effective and cost efficient (Goal CF -6). (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? Utility demands of the Fire Station office are lower than many of the infrastructure demands generated by permitted uses in the C-3 zone. The addition of the proposed office on the site will have minimal impact on utilities and surrounding streets. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The general area surrounding the Fire Station site is commercial and industrial in nature, involving trucking and transfer activities, industrial suppliers and related types of businesses. The Fire Station has been located on the site for 17 years and has not negatively impacted the surrounding area. The proposed office likewise if placed properly and painted to complement the Fire Station will be in harmony with the fire Station and intended character of the general area. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof Structures in the C-3 zone are limited to forty-five (45) feet in height. The proposed office will be less than 14 feet in height and will be setback from Oregon Avenue over 150 feet. The existing Fire Station and associated operations have not discouraged development in the area nor have they diminished the value of surrounding properties. According to Franklin County Assessors records (2015) surrounding properties have generally increase in value in the recent past. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The C-3 zone permits a variety of commercial uses, most of which generate more traffic, noise, vibrations and dust than will the proposed office activities. The City receives no complaints about the operations of the Fire Station. 4 (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed office will not negatively impact surrounding development and will only support the ongoing operations of the City's Fire Department. The operations of the current offices in the Fire Station have not endangered public health and have not become a nuisance to permitted uses in the area. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to Franklin County tax parcel # 112104035; 2) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the Special Permit application; 3) The modular office shall be pit set and installed per manufacturers specification; 4) The modular office shall be painted to match or complement the existing Fire Station on the site; 5) If the on-site garbage dumpster enclosure is to be relocated the Fire Department must coordinate with Basin Disposal on the relocation of said enclosure; 6) A separate sewer service is required per PMC 13A.52.140; 7) The water meter must be located in the right-of-way following Standard 2-34; 8) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by May 1, 2016. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a modular office for Fire Station 81 on tax parcel # 112104035 with conditions as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report. 5 (O �"�P SSR 39 Ct ON �E 7 J � V 1 F y,o 4-4 { Cl) a Vie• \\ t 4,� ■ Cl) M V 1p �&66R 47AOK14A 1�Cf) Lpt555 W FM _-- / - -; -- i- 00 '♦:--� ♦♦♦♦ igo ce-- ♦go♦ 00 ♦- 00 --- - -- •--- .---'"♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦ ♦ - 10 ♦ ♦ �i---♦ =��♦ M op 1 E - B 0 Ni N EVI-L 310 N. OREGON AVE, PASCO, WA CITY OF PASCO CITY OF PASCO PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 509 545-3164 b W� °oww GENERAL NOTES RcvlsloN "-L�b 1 P -I C' I ff it ii ri a .m MEHEEN CRAFTED IN THE USP March 30, 2015 David McDonald Pasco Planning Commission P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 :1. Meheen Manufacturing, Inc 325 N. Oregon Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 USA P 509.547.7029 F 509.547 0939 meheen.com Dear David, thank you for speaking with me this morning regarding the letter of public hearing for the modular office adjacent to Firehouse 81. Unfortunately I am unable to attend your scheduled hearing on April 16 as we are in Portland Oregon for the Craft Brewers Conference. I would appreciate this letter being read in the meeting and copies presented to all members of the planning commission. As an international business with clients from around the globe attending our facility every month, I am concerned with the appearance of a modular building visible from Oregon Ave. and our front entrance. I am also concerned that this temporary structure may become permanent without meeting the same esthetic and structural requires imposed on all businesses operating in this area. Further modular structures will have a negative impact on the surrounding properties value. For these reasons I strongly oppose a special permit to locate a modular office in this area. Sincerely, David Meheen President REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-001 HEARING DATE: 4/16/2015 ACTION DATE: 5/21/2015 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Majestia Place 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: Peter Strizhak 6159 W. Deschutes Ave., Ste #509 Kennewick, WA 99336 Legal: Lots 12, 18 and 19 Coles Estates with adjoining vacated Road 92 General Location: 6000 Block of Road 90 and at the south end of Kent Lane Property Size: 10.53 Acres Number of Lot/ s Proposed: 38 single-family residential lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,570 ft2 to 13,037 ft2 Average Lot Square Footage: 8,300 ft2 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 90 3. UTILITIES: Utilities exist in in Road 90. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1 - Single -Family Residences SOUTH: C-1 - Vacant EAST: R-3 - Single -Family Residences/Vacant WEST: R-3 - Multi -Family & Single -Family Residences S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for residential development. Policy H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The proposed plat encompasses 10.53 acres of land and contains 38 single-family residential lots. This property was assigned RT (Residential Transition) when it was annexed to the City in 1982. In 2014 Council adopted Ordinance #4176 rezoning the subject site to R-1 (Low -Density Residential) to allow future single- family residential development. The rezone was approved without the use of a concomitant agreement. The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed residential development which provides the option to develop single-family homes. The proposed plat is a functional continuation of the surrounding Broadmoor Estates subdivisions. The overall density and average lot size between the proposed subdivision and Broadmoor Place to the north and east are similar. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 38 residential lots; with the lots varying in size from 7,570 to 13,037 square feet. The average lot size is 8,300 square feet. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets which will be dedicated. UTILITIES: Currently, municipal sewer and water lines are located both in Road 90 and Road 92. The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the construction design phase of the platting process. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not encroach upon buildable portions of the lots. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of 300 feet on residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street. STREET NAMES: Streets continuing from surrounding subdivisions will carry the names from the other subdivisions and streets without names will all be named prior to final platting. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires installation of irrigation lines as a part of infrastructure improvements. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. The Public Works Director may waive z the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the ground that provides 30% retention of irrigation water. In this case there are no water rights to deed to the City as a result the current fee will be required before a final plat is approved. INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.110) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact": Prevent Overcrowding: With an average lot size of 8,300 square feet the proposed development will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots and usable open spaces. R-1 zoning requires a 20 -foot front yard setback, five-foot side yard setbacks and a rear yard equal to or greater than the height of the house. Parks Opens Space/Schools: The proposed plat is located within a third of a mile from Vintage Park. Vintage Park is located directly south of Maya Angelou Elementary School. The developer will be required to pay the current park fee prior to receiving building permits. A new elementary school (Franklin) opened this year on the north end of Road 52. Two additional elementary schools are currently under construction with an opening date of this fall. Delta High School is also under construction on Broadmoor Boulevard. The developer will be required to pay the current school impact fee prior to receiving building permits. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will be charged for each new home at the time of building permit issuance. Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for low-density residential development consistent with surrounding residential developments with the exception of Mediterranean Villas to the west. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat will connect to the community through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time homes are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to current City standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA ramps at the corners of each intersection will be installed with the construction of the road improvements. Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities. 3 Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat contains 38 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 38 new homes for Pasco residents. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitation of 40 percent and building setbacks will assure adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. Proper Access & Travel: The access streets will be paved and developed to City standards to assure that proper access is maintained to each lot. The discussion under safe travel above applies to this section also. Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is designated for single-family and mixed -residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within Urban Growth Boundaries. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies residential development • The site is currently zoned R-1. the site for single-family and mixed- • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 380 vehicle trips per day. • The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when warranted. • RCW 58.17. 110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved. • The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012. • Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. • There are no water rights associated with this plat therefor a payment in lieu of dedication of water rights will be required to receive final plat approval. 4 TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. The PUD requested easements along the front of all lots for utility service. Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW 58.17.110. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for additional housing within the City. (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates much of the site for mixed - residential development. Single-family homes are identified as one of the permitted residential uses within the mixed residential designation. Plan Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community while Plan Policy H -1-B supports the protection and enhancement of the established character of viable residential neighborhoods. (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; 5 Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e. school impact fees, park development and boundary fence construction) are included in approval conditions. (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. If approved the proposed plat will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest are served. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be installed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps must be completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval. All proposed utilities must be installed underground by the developer at the developer's expense. Sidewalks within the Plat must be located adjacent to the right-of-way line and off -set from the curb. Lots 23 and 27 may only be accessed from "Road A". 2. There is an existing water line east of Lots 34, 33, and 32. The developer will be responsible for relocating and reconnecting the two existing meters connected to the existing line. The blow -off at the end of the existing water line may be used instead of the proposed waterline cap south of Lot 32. The water line must terminate at a blow -off. The proposed irrigation line along Road 90 must be 8 -inch pipe and is required to connect to the existing irrigation line at Road 90 and Cheshire Court. 0 3. All lot frontages must be wide enough to accommodate the placement of all utilities while maintaining the necessary separations between the various utility service lines. 4. Along Road 90, the existing water and sewer lines will be tapped several times for utility services for Lots 5 through 11 resulting in the need for several road surface patches. Road 90 must be over -laid from curb -to -curb for the full length of the development along Road 90. 5. The developer must comply with PMC 26.04.115(B) and PMC 3.07.160 dealing with water rights acquisition. 6. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 7. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 8. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. 9. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of dwellings thereon. 10. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the first phase of the subdivision. 11. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. 12. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings shall utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be identified on each such submittal. 13. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 14. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat". 15. Street lighting must be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights are typically installed every 300 feet, and collector/ arterial type street lights are typically installed every 150 feet. Street light positioning is alternating and is measured along the centerline of the road. 7 16. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. 17. The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to ensure that no excess buildup of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities. Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer will be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system in accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement. 18. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process. 19. The developer/ builder shall mitigate impacts to the Public School System by the "school impact fee" established by Ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. 20. The developer/builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of $375 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of arterial boulevard strips. The City shall not accept maintenance responsibility for the landscaping abutting said streets until such time as all fees are collected for each phase that abut said streets. 21. The developer/ builder shall pay the "traffic impact fee" and "park fee" established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. 22. The developer shall install common estate type masonry wall/fence 6 feet in height adjacent the south line of Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4 as a part of the infrastructure improvements for the plat. Said estate wall shall be no closer than twenty (20) feet from the east property line of Lot 4. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 21, 2015 meeting. E3 anoe� 47;7s a NOIWM M'W dNMVWINWBWOQnty A QH �� 33TId HIlS3 f'`dW 19�� $s's ; ' MOd ltlld AtltlwimmUd 13� cMom �in5 es aLe `�€te'd�azArd3^' o we «`« OVOd 3NIl?AMOd Y @Ire idnoo wyHmna yy w g B y a 3�IJ(7 NO1`JNIll3M 'f w Qd - � ^� 103aIHo'3H0 L E9E ° � o Nv` v tl GVOH M 9 A, a m I •. :, I ,I. °SSG Ae. IP g��ry,a, _a I • n� IPI Itw m�� RP Nva IPS Im n„ I RI yv °an w I 3NVl \_N inrc u3F— HI1S31VW 3N11 tlus3,ry « A AV4NR3'dd tlMJ111INVS « Y Q RP la R g p aY • I m� I I ry I /e 16� kt Inn' p IG s- .ym a a O � m s a ^' ^- N019NIHSVM O3SVd d0 A1103H1 NI 031tl001 Noisma 5tl JOOtl9 N91530 ��IH�` 3OV�d VIlS3rVW °'= :aOJ NVld u i n AHVNIA113ad e 6 gG a .Z.=G n� z J o m �9 WbE wF w g Y I z _ _-- m aT6 — — BFFB. 1 §i_1 bC W I _ ay.I _11 1 Z QZi I I 10J 2 91-i - X11 alt m na os 1'` s- I a i - VI VI1S fVIN1- 0° I 1 . p e - Vicinity Map Item: Preliminary Plat Applicant: Peter Strizhak File #: PP2015-001 u �.�VINCENZO DR Ijj tLe DURHAM CT '' WELLING_ ;TON DR'' afT �. yr , I !- 0 Q` 7 �` T , I I SANDIFUR .. t ., Wnsmnt DR, ` M •a r Wnsmnt DR, ` M CITTYLIUITS W r 0 0 4 O U) UO 5..4. rx O O REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2015-001) APPLICANT: City of Pasco ACTION DATE: 4/ 1(a/2015 PO Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Develop zoning recommendation for the Road 80 Annexation Area. 1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population Rd 80 Annexation Area 688 acres 437 1,224 2) UTILITIES: City water lines are located in most streets throughout the proposed annexation area. City gravity sewer mains are found in Road 100 and Court Street bordering the proposed annexation area. There are also gravity mains in Road 84 north of Argent Road and in Argent for a distance of 401 feet east of Road 84. These lines connect to a small lift station in the southwest corner of the Chiawana High property. 3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned R -S-20, R -T under the County zoning regulations. About 97 percent of the area is zoned R -S-20 and 3 percent (23 acres) is zoned RT. 4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed annexation area for low density residential development the exception being the two school sites, McLoughlin and Livingston, which are identified as public or quasi -public. There is no corresponding zoning attached to the public designation so the two school sites are zoned RS -20. 5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS On January 20, 2015 the City Council approved the formation of an "Annexation Facts Committee" to review the facts related to the possible annexation of approximately 688 acres of unincorporated lands located west of Road 80. The proposed annexation area is part of the unincorporated West Pasco "donut hole". This area is developed with over 400 dwellings units, two schools, a large church, a major electrical substation, a seminary building and a veterinarian clinic. The area also contains or has contained a number of home based businesses including a paving company, a well driller and an excavator. Only about 116 acres or seventeen percent of the 1 proposed annexation area remains undeveloped. Of the 116 acres only about 76 acres are totally unencumbered without dwelling units. The other 40 acres consists of large parcels that have a dwelling and accessory buildings located somewhere on the parcels. These lots are large enough to be further divided for additional building lots. As part of the annexation process to the Planning Commission needs to hold a zoning determination hearing. The purpose of said hearing is for the Planning Commission to recommend appropriate zoning for the proposed annexation area in the event it may become part of the City. In determining the most appropriate zoning for the annexation area the Planning Commission needs to consider the existing land uses, development patterns, current County zoning, policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the land use designations of the land use map. The Planning Commission also needs to be guided by the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a zoning recommendation. Approximately 97 percent of the proposed annexation area is currently zoned RS -20 and developed in a low-density suburban fashion. Three percent of the area is zoned RT. The RS -20 regulations are essentially the same in the City and the County, however, the RT regulations are a little different. The County code permits commercial stables, riding academies, farriers, veterinary clinic, nurseries and greenhouses in RT zones and the City code only permits single-family dwellings. The Comprehensive Plan designates the annexation area for low-density residential development except for the school sites. The school sites are indicated as public and quasi -public land use areas. There is no specific zoning district that corresponds to the public and quasi -public designations. Schools and other public uses are not limited by zoning districts but, require review through the Special Permit process regardless of zoning district. The low density areas identify lands that should be zoned for only low density development. The Comprehensive Plan describes low-density development as residential development with two to five units per acre. Zoning districts applicable to the low-density designation include RS -20, RS -12, RS -1, R-1 and R -1-A. Zoning must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which limits the range of districts to the ones previously listed. No commercial of industrial zoning can be considered. Most of the residential lots within the annexation area meet or exceed the lot size requirements for RS -20 zoning. There are only a few lots (20) located directly west of Livingston Elementary School that are less than 20,000 square feet in size. Due to the existing development patterns and the lack of sewer service it appears RS -20 zoning would be the most appropriate designation. This will enable residential development to occur on all lands in the annexation area, including the currently zoned RT areas, at the same densities as generally existing in the annexation area today. VA The veterinarian clinic at 3012 Road 92 is currently zoned RT in the County would become a non -conforming use under the City's RS -20 or RT zones. As a non -conforming use the clinic can continue to be operated as it does today. The non -conforming status does not expire if the clinic is sold to another veterinarian. A few individuals on the Annexation Facts Committee are concerned that the recommended RS -20 zoning may lead to higher density residential zoning once their neighborhood is annexed. For a majority (572 acres of the 688) of the annexation area zoning will not alter the development patterns or increase the density. The 116 acres of the annexation area that could be developed is currently constrained by the lack of sewer service and will be for a number of years. Without sewer service residential lots will not be developed with less than about 22,000 square feet for many years. Those concerned about residential densities have asked that the RS -20 zoning designation by applied to the annexation area for a period of 20 years without the possibility of having it changed to another low-density zoning district. In responding to the request the City Attorney has advised the 20 year period is excessive and difficult to justify. His recommendation is for a more defensible 5 year period. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco. • The major change is the annexation of the parcels in question. Upon annexation the area will need to be zoned. • Much of the annexation area is now developed. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not determined the property could become annexed without a zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property needs to be zoned consistent with the established development patterns. 3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. 3 Zoning the proposed annexation area to generally reflect the current County zoning will maintain the current nature and value of the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Past annexation rezones have not negatively altered the value of adjoining properties in the City or the County 4. The effect on the property owners or owner of the request is not granted. Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners adjoining the proposed annexation area. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property. The Comprehensive Plan designates all of the annexation area for low- density residential development. The Growth Management Act requires zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. RS -20 is one of the listed residential zoning districts that is consistent with the low- density residential land use designation. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in 1994. 3) The property is being proposed for annexation by August 2015. 4) The annexation area is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential uses. 5) The Comprehensive Plan indicates RS -20, RS -12, RS -1 R-1 and R -1-A zoning district are applicable to the low-density land use designation 6) The Growth Management Act requires zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 7) The annexation area lacks sanitary sewer service and as a result most of the residential lots within the area are a half acre or larger. 8) Approximately 97 percent of the proposed annexation area is zoned R -S-20 9) RS -20 zoning is virtually the same in the City and County. 12 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning the area RS -20 to reflect the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan and established development patterns will cause the proposal to be in accord with the Plan. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. Retaining low density zoning on those properties developed with low density single-family homes will preserve the suburban nature of the neighborhood and will have no material impact on surrounding properties. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. It is in the best interest of the community and neighborhood to have the annexation area zoned to support the low density nature of the area. Without zoning, the value and character of the neighborhood would not be protected or maintained. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. Zoning the neighborhood consistent with the established development patterns within the neighborhood will mitigate the impacts of the property not being zoned upon annexation. If the area was zoned to reflect the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan and established densities and development patterns no additional conditions are needed. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is not needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report. 5 MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Road 80 Annexation Area to RS -20, as indicated on the zoning map identified as Exhibit # 1 attached to the October 18, 2012 staff report with the provision the RS -20 classification shall remain in effect for a minimum of 5 years. 9 NO oz-sb REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2015-002) APPLICANT: City of Pasco ACTION DATE: 4/16/2015 PO Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Develop zoning recommendation for the Sharma Annexation Area. 1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population Sharma Annexation Area 144 acres 2 5 2) UTILITIES: City water lines are located at the corner of Burns Road and Broadmoor Boulevard. A water line is also located in Burns Road along the southern boundary of the proposed annexation area. 3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned AP 20 under the County zoning regulations. Most of the site in being farmed. 4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed annexation area for low density residential development. Surrounding properties are also designated for low density residential development. 5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS On November 11, 2014 the City Council approved Resolution 3547 accepting a Notice of Intent to commence annexation proceedings for a 157 acre area located at the northwest corner of Broadmoor Boulevard and Burns Road. Following acceptance of the Notice of Intent and prior to Council action on an annexation petition, the Planning Commission is to hold a zoning determination hearing. The purpose of said hearing is for the Planning Commission to recommend appropriate zoning for the proposed annexation area in the event it may become part of the City. In determining the most appropriate zoning for the annexation area the Planning Commission needs to consider the existing land uses, development patterns, current County zoning, policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the land use designations of the land use map. The Planning Commission also 1 needs to be guided by the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a zoning recommendation. The annexation area contains a farm and two dwellings. The largest parcel is 119 acres and is being farmed. The other two parcels are vacant with the exception of a mobile home and an abandoned house. The Comprehensive Plan designates the annexation area for low-density residential development. The Comprehensive Plan describes low-density development as residential development with two to five units per acre. Zoning districts applicable to the low-density designation include RS -20, RS -12, RS -1, R-1 and R -1-A. Zoning must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which limits the range of districts to the ones previously listed. No commercial or industrial zoning can be considered for the annexation area. There are no subdivisions within the annexation area to provide an established development pattern from which to consider zoning. The Broadmoor Estates subdivision to the Southeast of the annexation area is the closets subdivision from which to draw a comparison. Broadmoor Estates was zoned R-1 with conditions establishing an average lot size of around 9,500 square feet. The RS -1 zoning district would most closely meet the established development configuration of Broadmoor Estates. RS -1 zoning has a minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet. Desert Plateau and Casa del Sol are examples of two subdivisions that were developed with RS -1 zoning. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco. • The major change is the annexation of the parcels in question. Upon annexation the area will need to be zoned. • Burns Road and Broadmoor Boulevard have both been extended past the annexation site. • A major water line has been installed in Burns Road and is being installed north in Dent Road. • Properties along Dent Road are being platted and developed with single-family dwellings. • The Six Year Capital Facilities Plan includes the installation of a major sewer trunk line in Burns Road. ►J 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not determined the property could become annexed without a zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property needs to be zoned consistent with the established development patterns. 3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning the proposed annexation area to generally reflect the current zoning in the closest subdivision to the east will maintain the current nature and value of Broadmoor Estates. RS -1 zoning is support by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with zoning that is permitted on surrounding properties Past annexation rezones have not negatively altered the value of adjoining properties in the City or the County 4. The effect on the property owners or owner of the request is not granted. Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners adjoining the proposed annexation area. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property. The Comprehensive Plan designates all of the annexation area for low- density residential development. The Growth Management Act requires zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. RS -1 is one of the listed residential zoning districts that is consistent with the low-density residential land use designation. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in 1994. 3) The property is being proposed for annexation by August 2015. 4) The annexation area is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential uses. 3 5) The Comprehensive Plan indicates RS -20, RS -12, RS -1 R-1 and R -1-A zoning district are applicable to the low-density land use designation 6) The Growth Management Act requires zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 7) Burns Road and Broadmoor Boulevard have both been extended past the annexation site. 8) A major water line has been installed in Burns Road and is being installed north in Dent Road. 9) The Six Year Capital Facilities Plan includes the installation of a major sewer trunk line in Burns Road. 10)RS-1 zoning will permit development with lots sizes similar to those in the Broadmoor Estates subdivision to the southeast of the annexation site. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning the area RS -1 to reflect the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan and established development patterns of the nearest subdivision will cause the proposal to be in accord with the Plan. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. Zoning the area RS -1 will support the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan for the annexation site and surrounding properties. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. It is in the best interest of the community and neighborhood to have the annexation area zoned to support the low density nature of the area. Without zoning, the value and character of the neighborhood would not be protected or maintained. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. Zoning the site RS -1 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and creates no adverse impacts that need mitigating. 0 (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is not needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Road 80 Annexation Area to RS -1, as indicated on the zoning map identified as Exhibit # 1 attached to the October 18, 2012 staff report. 5 Zoning Item: Sharma Annexation ,,� Map Applicant: City oiFl�asCo File #: ZD 2015-002 AP -20 2S-1 RT Residential Transition C-1 Retail Business AP -2® (Agricultural Production) County CITY LIMITS milli — of i■■■■■ �� �� ■■■■■ cR-3 (Medium -Deni Reside: C-1 QlRetail Bus ndifur IC -1 CR I-182 Exhiblet "'i11: I x.111 t. Annexation L`. �.ttIc� #1 Applicant- City of Pasco - . 2015-002 CITY LIMITS mm ii i■ � 1111■���� �� i. ■I 1m NINE mm '": W-0 ON mmmmmon mm MEESE I-182 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 30, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Emergency Aircraft Landing Code Amendment (MF# CA 2015-001) Title 9 (Peace, Safety & Morals) of the Pasco Municipal Code regulates aircraft landing within the city. Currently, it is a violation for aircraft to land anywhere within the City besides the airport and at hospital locations authorized by special permit. The intent of the proposed code amendment is to provide code authority for aircraft landing in cases of emergency. Specific language amending Title 9 is proposed as follows: 9.78.020 FACILITATING UNLAWFUL LANDINGS UNLAWFUL. Except in case of an emergency, it shall further be a violation of this chapter for the owner, lessee, manager, or any other person in charge of a public or private place to knowingly permit, encourage or cause, whether by commission or omission, any person to land a helicopter, airplane or ultralight aircraft in the City of Pasco except at an airport or heliport or any other landing or maneuvering space for aircraft permitted by special permit obtained under the provisions of Chapter 22..8 25.86 of the Pasco Municipal Code. Staff requests the Planning Commission discuss the proposed amendment and address any foreseeable concerns that may arise as a result of approval. Staff intends to bring this item back to the Planning Commission in May to conduct the public hearing. (MF# CA 2015-001) Page 1 of 1 ANCHOR I,PEA. c�V MEMORANDUM 8033 W. Grandridge Avenue, Suite A Kennewick, Washington 99336 Phone 509.491.3151 www.anchorqea.com To: Rick White and Jeff Adams, City of Pasco Date: March 2, 2015 From: Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA Project: 131050 cc: Angela San Felippo, Ecology and Ferdouse Oneza, Oneza & Associates Re: Draft SMP Revisions per City Staff and Planning Commission Review Anchor QEA has identified the following updates to the SMP based on the February 19 Planning Commission meeting and the subsequent February 24 meeting with City staff. 1. Move definitions currently located in the draft Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 29.01.860 to the beginning of Article I of the SMP regulations, consistent with format for other city code sections. 2. Change "Shoreline Conditional Use Permit" to "Special Use Permit" throughout the document, including PMC 20.01.750. "Conditional uses" as a term will continue to be used in the draft SMP code, when "permit" does not follow. 3. Color code the Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix (Table 29.01.200(2)), with green for A (allowed), yellow for C (conditional use) and red for X (prohibited). Also add an "X" in industrial uses section, water-related/water enjoyment row under the shoreline residential column. 4. Replace the Development Standards Matrix (Table 29.01.210(2)) with the following, updated table, noting that after further discussion with staff about relying on "conditional use" provisions versus trying to get more specific in the standards table, we revised the matrix with more specific standards, as reflected in the proposed updates. The trail width modification will also be updated in other sections of the SMP: \\Epsilon2\PIa g\12.0 TRAKITPRO)ECIS\Plays\PLAN 2013-001 Shoreline Manu Program\Task 6 Raft Shmelmv M.w P=ogamWQSMP Revisions Memo 2015-02-02 dace Rick White and Jeff Adams March 2, 2015 Table 29.01.210 (2) Shoreline Development Standards Matrix for City of Pasco Notes: 1. According to 29.01.210 (1)(c) 32. Accomoanied by stormwater management measures/facilities, wetland protections and other protections as as ola 23. Measured from the OHWM or top of bank as applicable. 4. Except where roadway, paved trail, or parking area or other development that has eliminated or constrained ecological functions encroaches and then to the waterward edge of the facility maintenance area, as applicable NA = not applicable 5. Update the values, as applicable in Table 29.01.520 (8)(a): Wetland Buffer Requirements consistent with Ecology January 2015 guidance 6. In Section 29.01.780, Duration of Permits, remove highlighted note and leave section as is. City concurs with the proposed timing. 7. Environment designation changes: 1) parallel designation of Natural and Urban Conservancy in Subreach Id, 2) split Subreach 5d in half, with west half as parallel Recreation and Public Flood Protection, and east half as parallel High Intensity — Mixed Use and Public Flood Protection designations, 3) change Subreach 6a to High Intensity — Mixed Use; and 4) in Subreach 6c from western edge to start of heavy C o v w m d c O C o C N d N W E d Y U 41 'i+ Y ✓ •y C A• Cr m a u r c Use/Modification ¢ z Building heights 15 3-5NJA 35 35 35 345 No 35 limt Building line setback in feet NA 10-15 Impervious surface cover_- 4A10 NA 5% 20% 20% 50% 100% 4050% — maximum (%)4 % Conserve Riparian buffer width in feet2.3' ° NA €entire - 75° 50" 50" 59° 50 — 50° area 420 feet or as required by Americans with Disabilities Trail width in feet NA NA Act regulations. Trails on private properties and not open for public use shall be up to 5 -feet -wide. Notes: 1. According to 29.01.210 (1)(c) 32. Accomoanied by stormwater management measures/facilities, wetland protections and other protections as as ola 23. Measured from the OHWM or top of bank as applicable. 4. Except where roadway, paved trail, or parking area or other development that has eliminated or constrained ecological functions encroaches and then to the waterward edge of the facility maintenance area, as applicable NA = not applicable 5. Update the values, as applicable in Table 29.01.520 (8)(a): Wetland Buffer Requirements consistent with Ecology January 2015 guidance 6. In Section 29.01.780, Duration of Permits, remove highlighted note and leave section as is. City concurs with the proposed timing. 7. Environment designation changes: 1) parallel designation of Natural and Urban Conservancy in Subreach Id, 2) split Subreach 5d in half, with west half as parallel Recreation and Public Flood Protection, and east half as parallel High Intensity — Mixed Use and Public Flood Protection designations, 3) change Subreach 6a to High Intensity — Mixed Use; and 4) in Subreach 6c from western edge to start of heavy Rick White and Jeff Adams March 2, 2015 Page 3 industrial area just east of Osprey Pointe, also make this area High Intensity — Mixed Use. Add High -Intensity — Mixed Use to legend. 8. Update per Ecology comments, as applicable (to be provided as separate document).